Covid-19 Pandemic

[rmgill]

Seriously, you jack-wagons keep accusing some of us of being antivaxers, referring to horse paste and the other calumnies, I'll call you out as apologists and defenders for the big state power hungry officials, incompetent public health officials and the profit seeking big corporations looking of regulatory capture. 

If you really want to ignore all of the various issues in all of this including giant red flags waved by folks like Drs McCullough and Molone, ie folks with a long history of working in the relevant fields, how about you just go get your boosters like good little helots and leave the complex thinking to those of us able to think independently of our supposed masters. 

 

Edited January 18, 2022 by rmgill

[RETAC21]

27 minutes ago, rmgill said:

Doctors experiment all the time with treatments. Its not experimentation In the proper sense, but it is an OODA loop. You see this all the time with a variety of diseases, especially novel disease. 
 

This is why I am going with an uncle tomorrow for his cardiologist to see if the dosage of two different meds are having the desired effect. 
 

 

Nonsense. Treating covid before it becomes severe is how you prevent the disease becoming severe. 
 

Its much the same as giving the entire world an untested, experimental vaccine, except its with antivirals that are already accepted for human use. 
 

The other difference is that people having a choice in differing treatment protocols for a given disease vs being forced to have a vaccine under pain of job loss or more so just allowed to die as some seem to feel fits into ethics is crazy. 

How many times do you have to make this accusation. Keep up and we will have to ask how much you're getting paid to flak for the vaccine companies. 
 

Vaccines have a place in this. They just aren't the only tool in the tool box. Not everything is a nail to be hammered. 

Only in Ryanworld

[RETAC21]

13 minutes ago, rmgill said:

Seriously, you jack-wagons keep accusing some of us of being antivaxers, referring to horse paste and the other calumnies, I'll call you out as apologists and defenders for the big state power hungry officials, incompetent public health officials and the profit seeking big corporations looking of regulatory capture. 

If you really want to ignore all of the various issues in all of this including giant red flags waved by folks like Drs McCullough and Molone, ie folks with a long history of working in the relevant fields, how about you just go get your boosters like good little helots and leave the complex thinking to those of us able to think independently of our supposed masters. 

 

Once again Ryan rises, the savior of Ryanworld, all hail Ryan!

You are becoming comical.

[rmgill]

13 minutes ago, RETAC21 said:

Only in Ryanworld

Also in reality. Yeah. Maybe in your world of lysenkoism, there's only one approved treatment for any particular disease. 

 

Edited January 18, 2022 by rmgill

[rmgill]

Anyone else listen to Rogan's interview with McCollough yet?

 

https://open.spotify.com/episode/0aZte37vtFTkYT7b0b04Qz?si=QVu-NtAfQ5WgCzF1CqGNhQ

Edited January 18, 2022 by rmgill

[RETAC21]

3 minutes ago, rmgill said:

Also in reality. Yeah. Maybe in your world of lysenkoism, there's only one approved treatment for any particular disease. 

 

Let me underline the part that good Italian doctor missed, and so did you.

Oh, wait, vaccines are approved, then why do you reject them? only unapproved treatments are good now?

And with this, I will leave you to Walt the rest of your day, I have wasted enough time already.

[rmgill]

Do you understand what off label drug use is? Do you understand why it might be useful?  
 

I get that you are stuck in the world of only doing what is specifically allowed by your masters. But the rest of us think a bit more flexibility is necessary. 
 

Strange that you object to off label use but are fine with fast track from development to general use with abbreviated phase 1-3 trials. 
 

Experimental use of new drug mandated A-OK. The Authorities say its fine. 
Of label use of human tested meds, terrible action that demands a license suspension. 
 

This is as broken as the placebo group in Tuskeegee. 

Edited January 18, 2022 by rmgill

[rmgill]

For reference, this was Ryanworld when I was growing up. A Harvard Educated doctor investigating treatments to the betterment of the patients outcomes. This was the man who raised me.
 

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/6218574/

 

Sure, I had a kid’s eye view of a bunch of it but you can’t grow up in a medical family and not absorb the general gist of things, especially when all your friends are also the kids of the other doctors at dinner parties.  

But this idea that there should only be approved treatment for a disease is foolish, ethically untenable and unjustifiable from a medical point of view.  

Edited January 18, 2022 by rmgill

[DKTanker]

6 hours ago, RETAC21 said:

Which means he saved not one life, as none were severe cases and therefore no one was at risk.

Or maybe he saved the lives of every one of his patients since his care prevented them from developing into severe cases?

Fairly non-sensical, wouldn't you say?  Can't give credit for saving lives because nobody lost their life.

As for your assertion that doctors are not allowed to experiment on their patients, every single time a doctor prescribes a course of treatment or medication, that is by definition an experiment.  There are risks for every course of treatment and every medication.  Granted some risks are miniscule, some procedures are accepted best practice, but no responsible doctor will ever suggest a procedure or medication is 100% safe and 100% effective.  Therefore, because there is less than 100% assurance it is by definition an experiment.  It is why, at least in the USA, that the patient is supposed to have informed consent before being administered any medication or undergoing any medical procedure.

[DKTanker]

18 minutes ago, rmgill said:

 

But this idea that there should only be approved treatment for a disease is foolish, ethically untenable and unjustifiable from a medical point of view.  

Indeed.  Why the need for years and years of medical school and internship to read a manual and follow explicit instructions?  Seems like a waste of time and money if all one should do is Google the symptoms and lab results and then proceed with the state approved and proscribed treatment plan.  Anybody that can read and use a computer should be able to do that.

[RETAC21]

1 minute ago, DKTanker said:

Or maybe he saved the lives of every one of his patients since his care prevented them from developing into severe cases?

Fairly non-sensical, wouldn't you say?  Can't give credit for saving lives because nobody lost their life.

As for your assertion that doctors are not allowed to experiment on their patients, every single time a doctor prescribes a course of treatment or medication, that is by definition an experiment.  There are risks for every course of treatment and every medication.  Granted some risks are miniscule, some procedures are accepted best practice, but no responsible doctor will ever suggest a procedure or medication is 100% safe and 100% effective.  Therefore, because there is less than 100% assurance it is by definition an experiment.  It is why, at least in the USA, that the patient is supposed to have informed consent before being administered any medication or undergoing any medical procedure.

By the same rule you can't say their lives were at risk, can you? further, if they are asymptomatic, they aren't at risk by definition.

And no, doctors do not perform experiments when they give you medication, since these "experiments" have been performed before the medicine was authorised (did you miss Nitflegal posts?) so they know the risks and the benefits and consider these second outweight the first, precisely because of the "experiments". There are risks? by all means, does that mean you are given a medication a part of a scientific procedure undertaken to make a discovery, test a hypothesis, or demonstrate a known fact (definition of experiment)? no.

[RETAC21]

1 minute ago, DKTanker said:

Indeed.  Why the need for years and years of medical school and internship to read a manual and follow explicit instructions?  Seems like a waste of time and money if all one should do is Google the symptoms and lab results and then proceed with the state approved and proscribed treatment plan.  Anybody that can read and use a computer should be able to do that.

And go further, why study if you can google the results and self-medicate and tell others what to take? there's no need to have doctors!

[DKTanker]

22 minutes ago, RETAC21 said:

By the same rule you can't say their lives were at risk, can you? further, if they are asymptomatic, they aren't at risk by definition.

And no, doctors do not perform experiments when they give you medication, since these "experiments" have been performed before the medicine was authorised (did you miss Nitflegal posts?) so they know the risks and the benefits and consider these second outweight the first, precisely because of the "experiments". There are risks? by all means, does that mean you are given a medication a part of a scientific procedure undertaken to make a discovery, test a hypothesis, or demonstrate a known fact (definition of experiment)? no.

Perhaps the treatment kept the asymptomatic from becoming symptomatic?  I know, a mind blowing concept to think about.  Give it a try.
I don't care if it is "approved" it still amounts to experimentation.  Example.  I have hypertension, my doctor prescribes an "approved" medication and says, come back in three months so we can see how well the medication is working.  If not well, we'll try something else.  That, happened.  That's called an experiment.

Definition of experiment

1a: TEST, TRIAL  make another experiment of his suspicion— William Shakespeare

b: a tentative procedure or policy

c: an operation or procedure carried out under controlled conditions in order to discover an unknown effect or law, to test or establish a hypothesis, or to illustrate a known law

[DKTanker]

28 minutes ago, RETAC21 said:

And go further, why study if you can google the results and self-medicate and tell others what to take? there's no need to have doctors!

According to your strict standards of only doing exactly as told, I agree.

[rmgill]

50 minutes ago, RETAC21 said:

By the same rule you can't say their lives were at risk, can you? further, if they are asymptomatic, they aren't at risk by definition.

Early in the pandemic they were. The entire front of send patients home unless absolutely critical for hospital care was part of what helped get those hospital crushing surges. if you can nip the infection in the bud from the start before it ever goes into the ARDS or other critical phases, you’re doing the patient a favor.. 

50 minutes ago, RETAC21 said:

And no, doctors do not perform experiments when they give you medication, since these "experiments" have been performed before the medicine was authorised (did you miss Nitflegal posts?)

I worked in a lab where the doctor was examining results from stents that had an experimental coating on them. The entire path of medicine is fraught with minor incremental experimentation in the face of dire need with patients who are willing.. Using a medication or device already in general use  for a different procedure is entirely in line with medical ethics, usually with direct patient consent. Do you care if a good outcome was made with wise use of a device originally intended for one purpose bust instead used for another as it seemed like a good idea by the doctor? How many odd instruments do you think doctors came up with tinkering?

How do you think those little serendipities of medicine manifest? 

More so, what do you think the phase I - III trials are also inclusive of? Experimentation, albeit on a larger scale. 

 

[rmgill]

59 minutes ago, RETAC21 said:

And go further, why study if you can google the results and self-medicate and tell others what to take? there's no need to have doctors!

Do you think the bureaucrats setting the standards are doing the direct clinical experimentation? 

Malone and McCullough are. They also understand the complex systems that are biological processes. 

If you’re so set on what the paper pushers say, why are you even reading this thread? Why not latch your eyes to their official releases and just go with that? 

[rmgill]

34 minutes ago, DKTanker said:

I don't care if it is "approved" it still amounts to experimentation.  Example.  I have hypertension, my doctor prescribes an "approved" medication and says, come back in three months so we can see how well the medication is working.  If not well, we'll try something else.  That, happened.  That's called an experiment.

Definition of experiment

1a: TEST, TRIAL  make another experiment of his suspicion— William Shakespeare

b: a tentative procedure or policy

c: an operation or procedure carried out under controlled conditions in order to discover an unknown effect or law, to test or establish a hypothesis, or to illustrate a known law

I have in the back of my mind, my stepfather saying on rounds the few times I was able to tag along on a Saturday, “hmmm, X doesn’t seem to be working, I’d like to try Y and Z…”

[seahawk]

1 hour ago, RETAC21 said:

And no, doctors do not perform experiments when they give you medication, since these "experiments" have been performed before the medicine was authorised (did you miss Nitflegal posts?) so they know the risks and the benefits and consider these second outweight the first, precisely because of the "experiments".

So, I guess this is not true for the "Corona vaccines", is it?

[RETAC21]

2 hours ago, DKTanker said:

According to your strict standards of only doing exactly as told, I agree.

Well, do tell us how it works out...

[RETAC21]

1 hour ago, seahawk said:

So, I guess this is not true for the "Corona vaccines", is it?

Stop trolling, "them" will take you seriously.

[sunday]

To think that someone in this thread not so long ago conceded to step down from the mighty heights of forum credibility and stooped to graciously counsel some schmuck to not go "full lastdingo"...

[rmgill]

10 minutes ago, RETAC21 said:

Stop trolling, "them" will take you seriously.

We could never confuse the idea that vaccinating with experimental vaccines entire countries just short of at the barrel of a gun (sure its only your job and livelihood right) and someone being given the voluntary option to try medication approved for a bunch of things for years if not decades but off label from the primary purpose. 

 

 

Edited January 18, 2022 by rmgill

[RETAC21]

5 minutes ago, sunday said:

To think that someone in this thread not so long ago conceded to step down from the mighty heights of forum credibility and stooped to graciously counsel some schmuck to not go "full lastdingo"...

and you reached a 1 in noise to signal.

[rmgill]

Ahh, signal, you mean aside from the officially sanctioned one from INGSOC?

[DB]

3 hours ago, rmgill said:

For reference, this was Ryanworld when I was growing up. A Harvard Educated doctor investigating treatments to the betterment of the patients outcomes. This was the man who raised me.
 

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/6218574/

 

Sure, I had a kid’s eye view of a bunch of it but you can’t grow up in a medical family and not absorb the general gist of things, especially when all your friends are also the kids of the other doctors at dinner parties.  

But this idea that there should only be approved treatment for a disease is foolish, ethically untenable and unjustifiable from a medical point of view.  

And there it is, the perfect storm.

Not only an appeal to authority, but even better than that, an appeal to authority gained through genetic memory, or perhaps osmosis. If you rubbed against his legs as a young'un, did you find that you gained knowledge more quickly, or just static electricity?